[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2220-S2231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 518. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the training of health professions students with respect to the 
identification and referral of victims of domestic violence; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, domestic violence is a national crisis 
that shatters the lives of millions of women across this country and 
tears at the fabric of this society. Despite increased efforts prompted 
by legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, domestic 
violence continues to be the leading cause of injury to women across 
the country between the ages of 15 to 44. Furthermore, many of our 
health professionals today--those who are often the first in a position 
to recognize domestic violence, still do not have the proper training 
to assist these very vulnerable victims.
  Wonderful partnerships currently exist between many hospitals and 
graduate medical institutions and these partnerships should be 
encouraged in order to more effectively serve victims of domestic 
violence and prevent future violent attacks.
  For these reasons, I am reintroducing my bill, the Domestic Violence 
Identification and Referral Act, which would help ensure that medical 
professionals have the training they need to recognize and treat 
domestic violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder 
abuse. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to require 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference in 
awarding grants to institutions that train health professionals in 
identifying, treating, and referring patients who are victims of 
domestic violence to appropriate services.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this worthwhile legislation that 
would help in our continued fight to prevent domestic violence across 
this nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 519. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that trusts established for the benefit of individuals with 
disabilities shall be taxed at the same rate as individual taxpayers, 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to address a tax 
inequity that has existed for some time and was made worse by the large 
tax increases of 1993. The ``Tax Fairness for Support of the 
Permanently Disabled Act'' would change the tax rates for the taxable 
income of a trust fund established solely for the benefit of a person 
who is permanently and totally disabled. Instead of being taxed at the 
highest tax rate 39.6 percent for amounts over $7500, the income of 
this fund would be taxed at the tax rates that would normally apply to 
regular income of the same amount. In essence, trust fund income would 
be treated as personal income for a permanently disabled person.
  Mr. Nicholas Verbin of Nashville, TN personally called my office 
about this problem he had encountered. The problem was that he had 
established an irrevocable trust for his son Nicky, who is completely 
disabled, unable to work, and totally dependent on his dad to provide 
for him. Mr. Verbin has spent his whole life building up this trust 
fund so that his son can live off this lifetime of hard work after Mr. 
Verbin is gone. Mr. Verbin does not want his son to have to go on 
welfare or become a ward of the state. Instead, he has

[[Page S2221]]

built up this fund so that his son can be self-sufficient after he 
dies. Apparently, the federal government would rather have Nicky on its 
welfare roles than have him take care of himself.
  Instead of taxing the interest that Nicky's trust accumulates every 
year as simple income, which it is since Nicky has no other form of 
income, the IRS taxes the interest at the highest rate allowable, 39.6 
percent. Instead of helping this sum grow into a sort of pension fund 
for Nicky, the IRS has milked it for all its worth. If Nicky's trust 
earns more than $7500 in interest in a year, the federal government 
takes $2,125 plus 39.5 percent of the amount above $7500. Meanwhile, 
even Bill Gates does not pay 39.6 percent on the first $275,000 of his 
income. We are taxing disabled children at a rate that we don't even 
tax multimillionaires!
  I believe that we should not punish Mr. Verbin for his foresight, nor 
should we punish Nicky for his disability. While a case could be made 
that Congress should eliminate the tax on this type of trust 
altogether, I have simply proposed that the interest income be treated 
like normal income for those disabled boys and girls, men and women who 
cannot work for themselves and depend on this interest as their only 
source of income.
  I ask my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 519

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Fairness for Support of 
     the Permanently Disabled Act''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF TAX RATES FOR TRUSTS FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   WHO ARE DISABLED.

       (a) In General.--Section 1(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to tax imposed on estates and trusts) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
       (2) by striking ``There'' and inserting:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     there'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Special rule for trusts for disabled individuals.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable 
     income of an eligible trust taxable under this subsection a 
     tax determined in the same manner as under subsection (c).
       ``(B) Eligible trust.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a 
     trust shall be treated as an eligible trust for any taxable 
     year if, at all times during such year during which the trust 
     is in existence, the exclusive purpose of the trust is to 
     provide reasonable amounts for the support and maintenance of 
     1 or more beneficiaries each of whom is permanently and 
     totally disabled (within the meaning of section 22(e)(3)). A 
     trust shall not fail to meet the requirements of this 
     subparagraph merely because the corpus of the trust may 
     revert to the grantor or a member of the grantor's family 
     upon the death of the beneficiary.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. 
        Reid):
  S. 520. A bill to amend the Clayton Act, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, along 
with my friend and colleagues Mr. Kohl, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Reid of 
Nevada, called the ``High-Density Airport Competition Act of 2001.'' We 
are introducing this legislation in an effort to increase and maintain 
competition in the domestic aviation industry. If the traveling public 
is to have access to affordable, quality air service, real competition 
is essential.
  The need for this legislation stems from our belief that the recent 
surge in proposed mergers among our nation's major airlines is a threat 
to competition. Let me explain. Less than a year ago, United Airlines 
and US Airways announced their plans to merge, creating an airline that 
would be nearly 50 percent larger than its next closest competitor and 
a network significantly more extensive than other carriers. Most 
industry observers believed at that time that if the United/US Airways 
merger were allowed to go forward, those airlines would gain a dominant 
position at several key airports throughout the country, including 
airports such as New York LaGuardia and Reagan National airport here in 
Washington.
  At the time the merger was announced, I expressed my concern that 
this merger would provoke further airline consolidation and potentially 
could leave the country with as few as three large domestic carriers. I 
continue to be concerned about additional mergers, and for good reason.
  In early January of this year, American Airlines announced that it 
was joining in the United/US Airways deal by acquiring certain assets 
from US Airways and also by entering into agreements with United, 
including an agreement to jointly operate the lucrative Washington/New 
York/Boston shuttle. So, if the deal is successful, instead of having 
one dominant carrier, our country would face the prospect of having two 
airlines that are significantly larger than their competitors.
  Quite frankly, American Airlines saw the writing on the wall. Its 
leaders understood how difficult it would be to compete effectively in 
an industry where one airline was so much larger and so dominant in 
certain key business markets. As a result, American decided that, in 
order to survive, it had to join the deal and grow much bigger, as 
well.
  If these deals are allowed to go forward, I am certain we will see 
even more consolidations. As policy-makers, we are faced with a 
daunting question: Will the airline industry remain sufficiently 
competitive in the wake of the proposed United and American deals? We 
have concluded that unless action is taken, competition very likely 
will be harmed.
  But we cannot just sit idly by and let competition in this critical 
industry waste away. It is vital that other airlines have the 
opportunity to compete, and a big part of that is having access to 
airports that are essential in a network business, such as the aviation 
industry. Two of these key airports, Reagan National and LaGuardia, are 
subject to government slot controls, which limit the number of take-off 
and landing slots during a day. If the United and American deals are 
permitted, those two airlines will control roughly 65 percent of the 
slots at Reagan National and New York LaGuardia. These are key 
resources that other airlines need reasonable access to if competition 
is to be maintained.
  Simply put, competition is not served if we allow two airlines to 
dominate these airports. More important, consumer interests are not 
served if any airline is permitted to gain such a position through 
mergers. That's why my colleagues and I are introducing the ``High-
Density Airport Competition Act.'' This bill represents one way to 
maintain a competitive environment in the airline industry.
  Specifically, our bill would limit the percentage of slots that large 
national carriers can control at Reagan National and New York LaGuardia 
airports. The legislation would ensure that no single airline gains an 
anticompetitive advantage at these slot controlled airports. It would 
do so by prohibiting any large airline from controlling more than 20 
percent of the slots over any 2-hour period. If such an airline did 
have more than 20 percent of the slots, that airline would be required 
within 60 days to either return the slots to the Department of 
Transportation or sell the slots in a blind auction. This procedure 
would preserve competition by giving all airlines equal opportunity to 
bid for the slots and gain access to these airports.
  Again, our overriding concern is the welfare of the traveling public. 
We have seen, first-hand, the frustration of many travelers about 
service, delays, and high air fares. The answer to those and other 
challenges is not more consolidation. The answer is effective 
competition. We are concerned the airline industry is moving in the 
wrong direction, toward a consolidated industry, away from a truly 
competitive, consumer-friendly environment. That's not good for the 
industry. And, that's certainly not good for consumers. That is why I 
hope my colleagues will join us in support of our legislation. We need 
to move back to real competition in our domestic aviation industry, an 
industry that we all recognize plays a vital role in our Nation and our 
economy.

[[Page S2222]]

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators 
DeWine, Grassley, and Reid, to introduce the ``High Density Airport 
Competition Act of 2001.'' This legislation is a small but important 
step to promote airline competition during this time of massive 
consolidation in the airline industry. This legislation will prevent 
any large national carrier from gaining a dominant share of takeoff and 
landing slots at either Washington Reagan National or New York 
LaGuardia airports.
  During the last year, we have all witnessed a tremendous 
consolidation in the airline industry. First, last May, United 
announced its planned deal to acquire US Airways. More recently, in 
January, airline consolidation took another great leap forward as 
American announced its plan to acquire TWA, and also its deal with 
United to acquire 20 percent of the US Airways assets. If all of these 
combinations and acquisitions are approved, the result will be that 
American and United will become the nation's dominant airlines, 
controlling about half of the national market. And many believe we are 
not done yet, with press reports that Delta is soon expected to 
announce an acquisition of its own. That would mean three large 
national airlines would dominate 75 percent of the market.
  The problem of airline consolidation is especially acute at the two 
of the nation's four slot-controlled airports, Washington Reagan 
National and New York LaGuardia. At these two vital airports, if all 
these mergers go through as planned, American, United and their 
affiliated and partner carriers will together control nearly two-thirds 
of the slots, leaving little room for competitors.
  Gaining access to slots at these airports is essential for smaller 
and start-up airlines if they are to compete with the giant mega-
carriers, especially after these mergers are completed. Without slots, 
airlines cannot take off or land at these two airports. And access to 
these key airports in New York and Washington, D.C. is essential for 
smaller airlines to build national networks to compete with the large 
carriers. Without that access for smaller airlines, large airlines will 
dominate the nation, grow larger and larger, and bar effective and 
robust competition. To show the importance of just one of these 
airports to the nation's entire air transportation system, the FAA 
recently reported that more than one quarter of the nation's entire 
congestion related flight delays resulted from delays at LaGuardia 
airport alone.
  Our legislation is a simple and effective measure to prevent large 
airlines from gaining a stranglehold on the slots at these two 
airports. It provides that, for any airline with at least a 15 percent 
share of the national market, that airline, and its affiliates, cannot 
control more than 20 percent of the slots at either Washington Reagan 
National or New York LaGuardia in any two hour period. If an airline 
exceeds these limits, it must take one of two steps, either return the 
excess slots to the FAA or sell them in a blind auction to its 
competitors. This blind auction provision will prevent airlines from 
disposing of their excess slots by engaging in ``sweetheart'' deals.
  Our legislation does not reach the other two-slot controlled 
airports, Chicago O'Hare or New York JFK. Slot controls are scheduled 
to be lifted at Chicago O'Hare in June of next year, and are in place 
at New York JFK only from 3 to 8 p.m.
  In sum, our legislation is a carefully crafted and narrowly tailored 
provision which will break the dominance that the large national 
carriers will have at two vital slot-controlled airports, particularly 
if the currently pending mergers are completed as planned. It will 
enable smaller and new carriers to have a fair shot at gaining access 
to these airports, and thus help bring real competition both to 
consumers who travel to and from New York and Washington and to the 
nation's skies as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 521. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for expenses incurred in teleworking; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation 
that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a 
tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a week on-line 
from home by using computers and other information technology tools. 
Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 
40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. At one 
national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its workforce 
works from home at least one day a week. The company found positive 
results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better retention, and 
higher productivity.
  I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act, along with 
Representative Frank Wolf in the House of Representatives, to provide a 
$500 tax credit for telework. The legislation provides an incentive to 
encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. 
Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The 
best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. 
Telework also reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces 
gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for 
families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. 
Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. 
Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be 
a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time.
  A task force on telework initiated by Governor James Gilmore of 
Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and promote 
telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit toward the 
purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that 
allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax 
machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses 
necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided 
the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year.
  My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or 
incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic 
information equipment which are used to enable an individual to 
telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to 
qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible 
for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the 
expense for setting up the at-home worksite.
  A number of groups have previously endorsed the Telework Tax 
Incentive Act including the International Telework Association and 
Council, ITAC, Covad Communications, National Town Builders 
Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer 
Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries 
Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile 
Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, 
TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern 
Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn 
Corp.
  On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced in coordination 
with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed into law by the 
President as part of the annual Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National 
Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the 
feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their 
employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including 
Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Denver 
have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design 
Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the 
application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia 
metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help 
to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many 
employees and employers.
  On July 14, 2000 the President signed legislation which included an 
additional $2 million to continue efforts in the 5 pilot cities, 
including Philadelphia, to market, implement, and evaluate strategies 
for awarding telecommuting, emissions reduction, and pollution credits 
established through the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act.

[[Page S2223]]

  Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides 
employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and 
increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while 
reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option 
which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve 
quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According 
to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked 
number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to 
traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including 
telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge.
  The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan 
H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers 
typically work 9 days per month at home with an average of 3 hours per 
week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers or 
telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent 
contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research 
findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees. 
Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable 
them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For 
employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee 
retention may total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an 
organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially 
realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity 
gains are added.
  Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing 
magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up 
to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a 
computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in 
our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush 
hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league 
or other important quality of life matters?
  I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation which 
promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for 
the workplace.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. 
        Wellstone):
  S. 522. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration to conduct a pilot program to raise awareness about 
telecommuting among small business employers, and to encourage such 
employers to offer telecommuting options to employees; to the Committee 
on Small Business.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator 
Daschle, Senator Cleland, and Senator Wellstone, in introducing 
legislation, the Small Business Telecommuting Act, to assist our 
nation's small businesses in establishing successful telecommuting, or 
telework programs, for their employees. Congressman Udall will be 
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
  Across America, numerous employers are responding to the needs of 
their employees and establishing telecommuting programs. In 2000, there 
were an estimated 16.5 million teleworkers. By the end of 2004, there 
will be an estimated 30 million teleworkers, representing an increase 
of almost 100 percent. Unfortunately, the majority of growth in new 
teleworkers comes from organizations employing over 1,500 people, while 
just a few years ago, most teleworkers worked for small- to medium-
sized organizations.
  By not taking advantage of modern technology and establishing 
successful telecommuting programs, small businesses are losing out on a 
host of benefits that will save them money, and make them more 
competitive. The reported productivity improvement of home-based 
teleworkers averages 15 percent, translating to an average bottom-line 
impact of $9,712 per teleworker. Additionally, most experienced 
teleworkers are determined to continue teleworking, meaning a 
successful telework program can be an important tool in the recruitment 
and retention of qualified and skilled employees. By establishing 
successful telework programs, small business owners would be able to 
retain these valuable employees by allowing them to work from a remote 
location, such as their home or a telework center.
  In addition to the cost savings realized by businesses that employ 
teleworkers, there are a number of related benefits to society and the 
employee. For example, telecommuters help reduce traffic and cut down 
on air pollution by staying off the roads during rush hour. Fully 80 
percent of home-only teleworkers commute to work on days they are not 
teleworking. Their one-way commute distance averages 19.7 miles, versus 
13.3 miles for non-teleworkers, meaning employees that take advantage 
of telecommuting programs are, more often than not, those with the 
longest commutes. Teleworking also gives employees more time to spend 
with their families and reduces stress levels by eliminating the 
pressure of a long commute.
  Our legislation seeks to extend the benefits of successful 
telecommuting programs to more of our nation's small businesses. 
Specifically, it establishes a pilot program in the Small Business 
Administration, SBA, to raise awareness about telecommuting among small 
business employers and to encourage those small businesses to establish 
telecommuting programs for their employees.
  Additionally, an important provision in our bill directs the SBA 
Administrator to undertake special efforts for businesses owned by, or 
employing, persons with disabilities and disabled America veterans. At 
the end of the day, telecommuting can provide more than just 
environmental benefits and improved quality of life. It can open the 
door to people who have been precluded from working in a traditional 
office setting due to physical disabilities.
  Our legislation is also limited in cost and scope. It establishes the 
pilot program in a maximum of five SBA regions and caps the total cost 
to five million dollars over two years. It also restricts the SBA to 
activities specifically proscribed in the legislation: developing 
educational materials; conducting outreach to small business; and 
acquiring equipment for demonstration purposes. Finally, it requires 
the SBA to prepare and submit a report to Congress evaluating the pilot 
program.
  Several hurdles to establishing successful telecommuting programs 
could be cleared by enacting our legislation. In fact, the number one 
reported obstacle to implementing a telecommuting program is a lack of 
know-how. Our bill will go a long way towards educating small business 
owners on how they can draft guidelines to make a telework program an 
affordable, manageable reality.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Small 
Business Telecommuting Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 522

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Telecommuting 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) telecommuting reduces the volume of peak commuter 
     traffic, thereby reducing traffic congestion and air 
     pollution;
       (2) the Nation's communities can benefit from 
     telecommuting, which gives workers more time to spend at home 
     with their families;
       (3) it is in the national interest to raise awareness 
     within the small business community of telecommuting options 
     for employees;
       (4) the small business community can benefit from offering 
     telecommuting options to employees because such options make 
     it easier for small employers to retain valued employees and 
     employees with irreplaceable institutional memory;
       (5) companies with telecommuting programs have found that 
     telecommuting can boost employee productivity 5 percent to 20 
     percent, thereby saving businesses valuable resources and 
     time;
       (6) 60 percent of the workforce is involved in information 
     work (an increase of 43 percent since 1990), allowing and 
     encouraging decentralization of paid work to occur; and
       (7) individuals with disabilities, including disabled 
     American veterans, who own or are employed by small 
     businesses could benefit from telecommuting to their 
     workplaces.

[[Page S2224]]

     SEC. 3. SMALL BUSINESS TELECOMMUTING PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with this Act, the 
     Administrator shall conduct, in not more than 5 of the Small 
     Business Administration's regions, a pilot program to raise 
     awareness about telecommuting among small business employers 
     and to encourage such employers to offer telecommuting 
     options to employees.
       (b) Special Outreach to Individuals With Disabilities.--In 
     carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator shall make 
     special efforts to do outreach to--
       (1) businesses owned by or employing individuals with 
     disabilities, and disabled American veterans in particular;
       (2) Federal, State, and local agencies having knowledge and 
     expertise in assisting individuals with disabilities or 
     disabled American veterans; and
       (3) any group or organization, the primary purpose of which 
     is to aid individuals with disabilities or disabled American 
     veterans.
       (c) Permissible Activities.--In carrying out the pilot 
     program, the Administrator may only--
       (1) produce educational materials and conduct presentations 
     designed to raise awareness in the small business community 
     of the benefits and the ease of telecommuting;
       (2) conduct outreach--
       (A) to small business concerns that are considering 
     offering telecommuting options; and
       (B) as provided in subsection (b); and
       (3) acquire telecommuting technologies and equipment to be 
     used for demonstration purposes.
       (d) Selection of Regions.--In determining which regions 
     will participate in the pilot program, the Administrator 
     shall give priority consideration to regions in which Federal 
     agencies and private-sector employers have demonstrated a 
     strong regional commitment to telecommuting.

     SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 2 years after the first date on which funds 
     are appropriated to carry out this Act, the Administrator 
     shall transmit to the Committee on Small Business of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business 
     of the Senate a report containing the results of an 
     evaluation of the pilot program and any recommendations as to 
     whether the pilot program, with or without modification, 
     should be extended to include the participation of all Small 
     Business Administration regions.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Small Business Administration;
       (2) the term ``disability'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12102);
       (3) the term ``pilot program'' means the program 
     established under section 3; and
       (4) the term ``telecommuting'' means the use of 
     telecommunications to perform work functions under 
     circumstances which reduce or eliminate the need to commute.

     SEC. 6. TERMINATION.

       The pilot program shall terminate 2 years after the first 
     date on which funds are appropriated to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Small 
     Business Administration $5,000,000 to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 523. A bill entitled the ``Building Better Health Centers Act of 
2001''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece 
of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety 
net, our nation's health centers, serve the uninsured and medically-
underserved.
  The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers' 
mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an 
artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal 
grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health 
center needs to do, including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But 
federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most 
critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or 
nonprofit organization, will ever face--capital improvements.
  Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers 
are destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over 
time, this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious 
about maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care 
access needs, we must allow federal grant dollars to be used to meet 
our health centers' capital needs.
  I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about 
health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health centers, 
which include community health centers, migrant health centers, 
homeless health centers, and public housing health centers, address the 
health care access problem by providing primary care services in 
thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved communities 
throughout the United States.
  And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious 
issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans' 
lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing 
health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to 
a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition, 
43 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty 
accessing care due to the inability to pay.
  Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,000 health 
center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to nearly 
12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 650,000 
farmworkers, and almost 600,000 homeless individuals each year. The 
care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high-
quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best 
health care bargains around, the average yearly cost for a health 
center patient is less than one dollar per day.
  I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health 
care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health 
centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to 
do exactly that. Last year, the Senate voted in support of a proposal I 
have made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by 
doubling funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush 
has proposed that we double the number of people that health centers 
care for over the next five years.

  But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources 
flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that 
stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I 
mentioned, federal health center grants are currently allowed to be 
used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and 
administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities, 
even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot 
be used for capital improvements.
  This means that unless health centers can find some other way to 
finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the 
significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could 
provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen.
  It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly 
expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the 
seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find 
ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or 
even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of-
control.
  It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately 
in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and 
purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment 
needed for the desired expansion into dental services.
  It means that even if federal government is will to commit grant 
funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved 
communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for 
miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of 
funding for a facility in which to house it.
  This is more than theory, the evidence shows that many existing 
health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation 
or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers 
reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight 
operate out of a facility more than half a century old.
  Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 11 states showed that 
more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified 
need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The 
average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the 
needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million 
efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2 
billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers.
  And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned, 
hundreds of

[[Page S2225]]

medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately use--the 
services of a health center. This further shows the need for new 
facilities, and more capital, as we expand access to new communities.
  So what about other possible sources of capital? There are plenty of 
ways--in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for 
capital improvements. Business, large and small, do it all the time. So 
do other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They 
use built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise 
money through private donations as part of a capital campaign.

  But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other 
businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic 
as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project.
  Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The 
revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants, 
low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health 
insurers is typically all put back into patient care.
  Heath centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise 
through private donations and non-federal grant sources. In fact, an 
average of 13 percent, one-seventh of their budget, of health care 
center revenue comes from these sources. Most of this private and 
public funding is used to meet operating expenses, and it is difficult 
to go back to the same sources to request further donations for capital 
needs. In fundraising, health centers also face a huge disadvantage 
compared to nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals 
because health centers lack a natural middle- and upper-class donor 
base. And raising private funds is particularly hard in isolated rural 
areas that are often quite poor and which can have the most dire heath 
care access problems.
  Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for 
capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured 
patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received 
from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant 
operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans 
because they don't feel assured that a health center will have 
sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are 
made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue 
that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources, such as the 
health centers' grant funding and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.
  So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a 
need, many health centers require significant help to build or maintain 
adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the 
loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal 
government from using health center funding to do exactly that.
  We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right 
now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the 
health center mission in the best way possible, and that is going to 
mean at times that we should support some new construction or major 
renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of 
repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a 
health center can reach out to, the federal government should help with 
the major renovation or the new construction needed.
  The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the federal 
government to make grants to health centers for facility construction, 
modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal 
is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many 
uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get 
rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers.

  Beyond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further 
and permits the federal government to guarantee loans made by a bank or 
another private lender to a health center to construct, replace, 
modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is 
an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other 
private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults 
on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can 
stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the federal 
government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated 
money, perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total, to insure 
against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that 
for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of 
loans can be guaranteed.
  There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options, the 
facility grants and the facility loan guarantees, to work together. 
Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by 
guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may 
well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure 
specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and 
the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as 
possible.
  Let me try to respond in advance to a few potential criticisms of 
this legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that 
the government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar 
projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just 
about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of 
specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects.
  Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction 
projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used 
for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance 
to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's 
funding level, this would mean up to $58.5 million for facility grants 
and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow 
some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily 
mean help for more than $200 million in health center projects. But the 
main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to five-
percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible runaway 
spending.
  Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not federal assistance is 
going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be 
expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction 
or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are 
expected to help. No more than 75 percent of the total costs of a major 
project can come from federal sources--and this is the absolute upper 
limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which 
federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This 
bill does not give local areas a free ride.
  The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are 
hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically-
underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help 
these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their 
building is literally crumbling around them.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This 
year, we are scheduled to reauthorize the Consolidated Health Centers 
program, along with other vital health care safety net programs like 
the National Health services Corps. I hope to include this bill--the 
Building Better Health Centers Act--in this larger safety net 
reauthorization legislation. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the Senate and on the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee to aggressively help our nation's health centers 
meet their dire capital needs by making this bill law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Breaux, 
        Mr. McCain, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Nelson 
        of Nebraska):
  S. 525. A bill to expand trade benefits to certain Andean countries, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill along with my 
colleagues Senators DeWine, Hagel, Breaux, McCain, Dodd, Thompson, 
Biden, and Ben Nelson to introduce the ``Andean Trade Preference 
Expansion Acts,'' a bill that would provide additional trade benefits 
to the countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

[[Page S2226]]

  The Andean Trade Preference Act, commonly known as ATPA, was passed 
in 1991. That legislation is set to expire. If we are serious about 
halting the flow of drugs into this country, we must not let this 
happen. If we are committed to stabilizing the situation in Colombia, 
we must act this year, to both extend and expand those trade benefits.
  The office of the United States Trade Representative recently 
published a report assessing the operation of the Andean trade 
agreement so far. The report concluded that this agreement is 
strengthening the legitimate economies of countries in the region and 
is an important component of our efforts to contain the spread of 
illicit activities. Export diversification in beneficiary countries is 
increasing, net coca cultivation has declined slightly. Although there 
is still progress to be made, these countries are working 
constructively with the United States on issues of concern including 
working conditions and intellectual property protection.
  Despite this success, renewal of ATPA in its current form is not our 
goal. The landscape has changed since 1991.
  Perhaps the most significant alteration was last year's passage of 
the ``Trade and Development Act of 2000,'' which provided significant 
new trade benefits to countries of the Caribbean Basin Initiative. As a 
result of enhanced trade benefits to these countries, the Andean region 
stands to lose a substantial number of apparel industry jobs--up to 
100,000 jobs in Colombia alone. At least 10 U.S.-based companies that 
purchase apparel from Colombian garment manufacturers have already 
indicated their near-term intentions to shift production to Caribbean 
countries due to the significant cost savings associated with the new 
trade benefits afforded the region. Some of these U.S. companies have 
utilized Colombia as a manufacturing base for more than 10 years, 
providing desperately needed legitimate employment to the Colombian 
economy.
  The immediate reaction of these companies to enhanced Caribbean trade 
benefits creates a dilemma. Clearly, it does not make sense for 
Congress to provide foreign aid on the one hand, and implement trade 
legislation that puts tens of thousands of people out of work on the 
other. This bill will address that critical, unintended contradiction 
by harmonizing the trade benefits of the Caribbean and Andean nations.
  Specifically, our bill would extend duty-free, quota-free treatment 
to apparel articles assembled, cut or knit in Andean beneficiary 
nations using yarns and fabric wholly formed in the United States, and 
provide benefits to non-apparel items that were previously excluded 
from the Andean trade preferences package. These new benefits will 
create parity with the Caribbean Basin Initiative nations as well as 
expand an important source of economic and employment growth for the 
U.S. textile and apparel industry.
  The United States is at now a critical juncture with its neighbors in 
the Andean region.
  Last year, the United States government responded generously to 
Colombia's needs by providing a supplemental appropriations package of 
more than $1.6 billion dollars to help the country in its time of 
crisis. These funds were in addition to over $4.0 billion being spent 
by Colombia itself.
  Fundamental to Plan Colombia, and to the government's ability to 
succeed in its efforts to safeguard the country, will be efforts to 
encourage economic growth and provide jobs to the Colombian people. 
Today in Colombia more than one million people are displaced, the 
unemployment rate is nearly 20 percent and Colombia is experiencing the 
worst recession in 70 years. Without new economic opportunities, more 
and more Colombians will turn to illicit activities to support their 
families or seek to join the growing numbers of people who are leaving 
the country to find a better, safer future for their families.
  This ``trade plus aid'' approach to stabilizing the Andean region has 
been widely embraced. In its March 2000 report. ``First Steps Toward a 
Constructive U.S. Policy in Colombia,'' a Task Force I co-chair with 
General Brent Scowcroft recommended the extension of the ATPA, to 
include the same benefits as those contained under the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative.
  Although this bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is 
particularly critical to Colombia, which in 1998 exported 59 percent of 
all textiles and apparel from the Andean region to the U.S., two-thirds 
of which were assembled and/or cut from U.S. yarns and fabric. 
Colombian President Pastrana recognizes this. In his visit to 
Washington last week he stressed that access to U.S. markets was among 
the top priorities.
  On a more comprehensive scale, passage of this legislation is 
critical to ensure that all nations in the Western Hemisphere can 
maintain their long-term competitiveness with Asian nations, 
particularly in the textile industry. At present, the textile products 
of most Asian nations are subject to quotas imposed by the Multi-Fiber 
Agreement, now known as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This 
restriction on Asian textiles has enabled the nations of the Western 
Hemisphere to remain competitive, and further, the Andean region--
specifically Colombia--has become a significant market for fabric woven 
in U.S. mills from yarn spun in the U.S. originating from U.S. cotton 
growers.
  However, in 2005, these Asian import quotas will be phased out. At 
that time, textile production in both the Andean region and the 
Caribbean basin will be placed at a distinct and growing disadvantage. 
Disinvestment in the region will occur, reducing the incentive to use 
any material from U.S. textile mills or cotton grown in the United 
States.
  The Congress must act this year to renew and expand trade benefits 
for the Andean countries. If we do not move forward, the current 
benefits will expire and these countries will lose an important means 
of developing legitimate industries and employment.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the illicit drug trade in the Andean 
region of South America is thriving. Lagging economies, weak law 
enforcement, and corrupt judiciary systems among many countries in the 
region have created an environment ideal for drug trafficking.
  The chaotic situation in Colombia illustrates this. The nation is 
suffering its worst recession in over 70 years. The unemployment rate 
is at nearly 20 percent. Not surprisingly, as the Colombian economy has 
worsened, the country's coca cultivation has skyrocketed, becoming the 
source of nearly 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United 
States. To make matters worse, as the illicit drug money has poured in, 
violent insurgent groups in Colombia have used it to fund their 
guerilla movements, movements creating instability not only within 
Colombia, but also across the entire Andean Region.
  Because of the dangerous and increasingly chaotic situation in the 
region, my colleagues--Senators Graham, McCain, Hagel, Breaux, Dodd, 
and Thompson--and I are introducing the ``Andean Trade Preference 
Expansion Act,'' a bill that will help establish much-needed stability 
and security in the Andean Region by promoting a strong economic 
environment for enhanced trade throughout the Western Hemisphere.
  This legislation is timely and important. The current Andean Trade 
Preference Act, which authorizes the President to grant certain 
unilateral preferential tariff benefits to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, 
and Peru, is set to expire on December 4, 2001. We need to renew and 
expand this trade act not only because of its benefits for U.S. 
companies trading in the region, but also because it encourages 
economic development in Andean countries and economic alternatives to 
drug production and trafficking. I fear, Mr. President, that if the 
Andean Trade Preferences Act is not renewed by the end of this year, 
the economic and political situation in the Andean Region likely will 
destabilize further, threatening to expand an already booming illicit 
drug trade.
  The economic situation in the Andean Region is growing worse by the 
day. The nations within the region have been struggling to pull 
themselves out of one of the worst economic crises in decades. The 
recession has been more severe than anticipated, and the Andean 
Development Corporation recently forecast negative rates of growth for 
next year in Colombia, Ecuador and

[[Page S2227]]

Venezuela. Only Peru and Bolivia will grow at all, and marginally at 
best.
  The Colombian civil war and its spillover effect have further 
weakened domestic economies. Political instability has deterred foreign 
investment, and increased capital flight has put pressure on domestic 
currencies. While there are a few signs of possible recovery--including 
an increase in oil prices that will be helpful for Ecuador, Colombia 
and Venezuela--there is concern that the Andean region could experience 
a destabilizing financial crisis similar to the recent one in Asia.
  Last year, Congress and the Clinton Administration tried to address 
political instability in the Andean region through passage of ``Plan 
Colombia''--the emergency supplemental plan developed to address the 
political and social instability in the Andean region. The Plan 
established programs to strengthen Colombian government institutions 
and promote alternative crop development programs throughout the 
region. A key element of Plan Colombia is that it recognizes that if we 
fight only the Colombian drug problem, we risk creating a ``spillover'' 
effect, where Colombia's drug trade shifts to adjacent countries in the 
region.
  For Plan Colombia to succeed, it is crucial that we help bolster the 
faltering economies of the Andean countries--namely Colombia, Peru, 
Bolivia, and Ecuador--so they don't turn to the drug trade as an means 
for economic livelihood. The legislation we are introducing today--the 
Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act--will help embolden Plan Colombia 
and will help it succeed by increasing trade and economic opportunities 
within the region. Let me explain.
  The recent implementation of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which 
provides enhanced trade benefits to nations trading with Caribbean 
countries, is having the unintended consequence of shifting economic 
opportunities away from the Andean Region to the Caribbean Basin. Such 
a shift is further shrinking the economies within the Andean Region. 
Colombia, for example, stands to lose up to 100,000 jobs in the apparel 
industry because of the CBI. The simple fact is that companies, 
including U.S.-based businesses, are moving production to the Caribbean 
Basin to capitalize on the significant cost savings associated with the 
new CBI law. Already, at least 10 U.S.-based companies that purchase 
apparel from Colombian garment manufacturers have indicated their 
intentions to shift production to the Caribbean.
  Our Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act would help correct for this 
unintended economic displacement by working in tandem with the CBI, so 
that we don't rob one region in our hemisphere to pay another. 
Specifically, our bill extends duty-free, quota-free treatment to 
apparel articles knit, assembled, or cut in an ATPA beneficiary nation 
that use yarns and fabrics wholly formed in the United States. This 
creates a measure of parity with Caribbean nations that currently 
receive trade preferences under the CBI. In addition, goods other than 
apparel that previously were not eligible for trade preferences under 
the current Andean Trade Preference Act would receive the NAFTA tariff 
rate.
  Although our bill provides benefits to all ATPA beneficiaries, it is 
particularly critical to Colombia, which, in 1998, exported to the 
United States 59 percent of all textiles and apparel from the Andean 
region. Two-thirds of those exports were assembled and/or cut from U.S. 
yarns and fabrics. We cannot allow Colombia's economy to take this kind 
of hit. Plan Colombia simply cannot be effective unless Colombia can 
improve its economy and create and maintain job opportunities. I 
believe that our new legislation will help prevent further economic 
destabilization and stands to promote future economic growth.
  Ultimately, we--as a nation--stand to lose or gain, depending on the 
economic health of our hemispheric neighbors. A more aggressive trade 
policy in the hemisphere is not only important for increasing markets 
for U.S. companies, but it also enhances stability and promotes 
security in the hemisphere. It is important to remember that a strong, 
and free, and prosperous hemisphere means a strong, and free, and 
prosperous United States. It is in our national interest to pursue an 
aggressive trade agenda in the Western Hemisphere to combat growing 
threats and promote prosperity.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the Andean Trade 
Preference Expansion Act. It is the right thing to do for our neighbors 
and for our businesses here at home.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join with Senators Graham, 
Hagel, DeWine, Dodd, Biden, Breaux, and Thompson today in introducing 
this important legislation to reauthorize the Andean Trade Preference 
Act. This legislation will renew and expand duty-free tariff treatment 
to our important trade partners: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. 
I would like to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of acting on 
this legislation, because the existing Andean Trade Preference Act will 
expire on December 4.
  Having recently visited the region, I would like to assure my 
colleagues that this program plays an important role in aiding the 
economic development of our Andean allies, and stabilizing fragile 
democracies in the region. The existing Andean Trade Preference Act has 
helped two-way trade between the United States and the region to nearly 
double in the 1990s. During this time, U.S. exports grew 65 percent and 
U.S. imports increased 98 percent. In addition, the program is 
responsible for an increase in industrial and agricultural imports from 
the Andean beneficiary countries. This economic diversification is 
beneficial for economic growth in the Andean region, and will reduce 
pressure for the citizens of the region to become involved in the drug 
trade.
  However, this program must be expanded to be truly effective. 
According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service, only 
10 percent of the imports from the Andean region enter the United 
States exclusively under the provisions of the existing Andean Trade 
Preference Act. I join with my colleagues in supporting Senator 
Graham's legislation, because it plays an important first step in the 
reauthorization process by extending to the Andean region similar trade 
benefits to what the Congress voted to give the Caribbean region last 
year. During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Ambassador 
Zoellick called for a ``renewed and robust Andean Trade Preference 
Act.'' I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will consider the United 
States Trade Representative's recommendations, and those of our allies 
in the Andean region, who have proven that they need expanded duty and 
quota-free treatment for their imports.
  Many of us have had the benefit of traveling to Colombia over the 
past few months to observe the American-funded drug eradication efforts 
there, and to discuss Plan Colombia with the region's leaders. During 
my visit to Colombia in February, President Andres Pastrana made clear 
that liberalized trade with the United States, in the form of renewal 
and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act, was a critical pillar 
of his strategy to promote alternatives to the drug trade in his 
country. Plan Colombia is premised upon reducing the power and allure 
of the narco-traffickers and their rebel supporters who threaten 
America's interest in a democratic, prosperous, and stable Western 
Hemisphere. While the military component of America's assistance 
package remains controversial at home, expanding our trade relationship 
with Colombia, a nation of industrious people and vast natural 
resources, is a logical extension of our compelling interest in 
strengthening the Colombian state and providing its people with 
rewarding economic opportunities in the legitimate economy.
  It is also important to view renewal and expansion of the Andean 
Trade Preference Act in terms of our larger trade agenda with our Latin 
American neighbors. Early reauthorization of this program will show our 
trade partners that the United States is seriously engaged in 
strengthening our trade relations and promoting interdependence in the 
region. It is my belief that the United States should pursue four 
policies this year in order to accomplish our mutually beneficial trade 
objectives with our Latin American partners:
  1. Early renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act;
  2. Passage of trade promotion authority for the President;
  3. Completion of negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile; 
and

[[Page S2228]]

  4. Accomplishment of serious progress on the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas negotiations in order to meet an early conclusion of these 
negotiations in 2003.
  I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the 
Senate to pass this legislation in a timely manner before the December 
expiration. It is in our nation's economic and national security 
interests to reauthorize and expand trade benefits for the Andean 
region.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 526. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that 
rail agreements and transactions subject to approval by the Surface 
Transportation Board are no longer exempt from the application of the 
antitrust laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue that is of 
great concern to many of my constituents and to me. That is the issue 
of unchecked monopoly power of the nation's freight railroad industry.
  Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the 
number of major Class I railroads has declined from approximately 42 to 
only four major U.S. railroads today. Rather than achieving the 
competitive framework intended by deregulation, today's freight 
railroad industry can be best described as a handful of regional 
monopolies that rely on bottlenecks to exert maximum market power. Four 
mega-railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 
percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, 
controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all 
grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement.
  This drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only 
two major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has 
far exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs. But 
consolidation alone has not produced these regional monopolies. Over 
the years, regulators have systematically adopted policies that so 
narrowly interpret the procompetitive provisions of the 1980 statute 
that railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete 
with each other.
  In my state, it costs $2,300 to move one rail car of wheat from North 
Dakota to Minneapolis, approx. 400 miles. Yet for a similar 400 mile 
move, between Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $238 to deliver 
that car. Move that same car another 600 miles to St. Louis, Missouri 
and it costs only $356 per car.
  Since the deregulation of the railroad industry, the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, now the Surface Transportation Board, has been 
charged with the responsibility to make sure that the pro-competitive 
intent of that law was being carried out, so that those rail users 
without access to true market based competition would be protected by 
``regulated competition.''
  That clearly hasn't happened. Competition among rail carriers is 
virtually nonexistent in part because the ICC and the STB have 
consistently chosen to protect railroads from such competition, and 
have done little to protect rail customers that have no alternatives.
  It is time for Congress to make it very clear that true market 
competition among railroads is what we originally intended then and 
what we require now. This is the same approach we have taken with 
telecommunications and natural gas pipelines, and it is the center of 
our deliberations regarding the future of the airline industry. 
Competition among railroads is critical for large sectors of our 
national economy.

  That is why today, along with Senator Jay Rockefeller, I am 
introducing the Rail Competition Enforcement Act to reinstate the 
Justice Department's review of proposed railroad mergers under 
antitrust laws. The bill would require both the Surface Transportation 
Board and the Justice Department to approve new mergers.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this most important 
matter. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 526

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rail Competition Enforcement 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 10706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and the Sherman 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1, et seq.),'' and all that follows through 
     ``or carrying out the agreement'' in the third sentence;
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking the second sentence; and
       (ii) by striking ``However, the'' in the third sentence and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, and the antitrust 
     laws set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection do not 
     apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or 
     carrying out the agreement''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a 
     proposed agreement described in subsection (a) from the 
     application of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of 
     the Wilson Tariff Act (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June 
     19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
       ``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing 
     any such proposed agreement for the purpose of any provision 
     of law described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other 
     reviewing agency shall take into account, among any other 
     considerations, the impact of the proposed agreement on 
     shippers and on affected communities.''.
       (b) Combinations.--Section 11321 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``The authority'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 11 of the Clayton 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 21(a)), the authority''; and
       (B) by striking ``is exempt from the antitrust laws and 
     from all other law,'' in the third sentence and inserting 
     ``is exempt from all other law (except the antitrust laws 
     referred to in subsection (c)),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a 
     transaction described in subsection (a) from the application 
     of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 
     13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
       ``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing 
     any such transaction for the purpose of any provision of law 
     described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other reviewing 
     agency shall take into account, among any other 
     considerations, the impact of the transaction on shippers and 
     on affected communities.''.
       (c) Clayton Act.--
       (1) Application of act.--Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 18) is amended by striking ``Surface Transportation 
     Board,'' in the last paragraph of that section.
       (2) FTC enforcement.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to 
     jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first 
     semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for 
     agreements described in section 10706 of that title and 
     transactions described in section 11321 of that title);''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for section 10706 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 10706. Rate agreements''.

       (2) The item relating to such section in the chapter 
     analysis at the beginning of chapter 107 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``10706. Rate agreements.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to any 
     agreement or transaction referred to in section 10706 or 
     11321, respectively, of title 49, United States Code, that is 
     submitted to the Surface Transportation Board after December 
     31, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thurmond, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bunning, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dayton, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Domenici, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
        Gramm, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. Miller, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Reid, Mr. Sessions,

[[Page S2229]]

        Mr. Roberts, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Thomas, Mr. Voinovich and, Mr. Warner):
  S.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with profound honor and reverence 
that I, together with my friend and colleague, Senator Cleland, 
introduce a bi-partisan constitutional amendment to permit Congress to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.
  The American flag serves as a symbol of our great nation. The flag 
represents in a way nothing else can, the common bond shared by an 
otherwise diverse people. Whatever our differences of party, race, 
religion, or socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are 
very much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a common 
faith in our nation.
  Nearly a decade ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reminded 
us of the significance of our unique emblem when he wrote:

       A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and 
     national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize 
     the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the 
     special history that has animated the growth and power of 
     those ideas. . . . So it is with the American flag. It is 
     more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, 
     and the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling 
     colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of 
     equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill 
     for other peoples who share our aspirations.

  Throughout our history, the flag has captured the hearts and minds of 
all types of people, ranging from school teachers to union workers, 
traffic cops, grandmothers, and combat veterans. In 1861, President 
Abraham Lincoln called our young men to put their lives on the line to 
preserve the Union. When Union troops were beaten and demoralized, 
General Ulysses Grant ordered a detachment of men to make an early 
morning attack on Lookout Mountain in Tennessee. When the fog lifted 
from Lookout Mountain, the rest of the Union troops saw the American 
flag flying and cheered with a newfound courage. This courage 
eventually led to a nation of free men; not half-free and half-slave.
  In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt called on all Americans to 
fight the aggression of the Axis powers. After suffering numerous early 
defeats, the free world watched in awe as five Marines and one sailor 
raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. Their undaunted, courageous act, 
for which three of the six men died, inspired the allied troops to 
attain victory over fascism.
  In 1990, President Bush called on our young men and women to go to 
the Mideast for Operations Desert Shield and Desert storm. After an 
unprovoked attack by the terrorist dictator Saadam Hussein on the 
Kingdom of Kuwait, American troops, wearing arm patches with the 
American flag on their shoulders, led the way to victory. General 
Norman Schwarzkopf addressed a joint session of Congress describing the 
American men and women who fought for the ideals symbolized by the 
American flag:

       [W]e were Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Moslems 
     and Buddhists, and many other religions, fighting for a 
     common and just cause. Because that's what your military is. 
     And we were black and white and yellow and brown and red. And 
     we noticed that when our blood was shed in the desert, it 
     didn't separate by race. It flowed together.

  General Schwarzkopf then thanked the American people for their 
support, stating:

       The prophets of doom, the naysayers, the protesters and the 
     flag-burners all said that you wouldn't stick by us, but we 
     knew better. We knew you'd never let us down. By golly, you 
     didn't.

  The pages of our history show that when this country has called our 
young men and women to serve under the American flag from Lookout 
Mountain to Iwo Jima to Kuwait, they have given their blood and lives. 
The crosses at Arlington, the Iwo Jima memorial, and the Vietnam 
Memorial honor those sacrifices. But there were those who did not.
  In 1984, Greg Johnson led a group of radicals in a protest march in 
which he doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire as 
his fellow protestors chanted: ``America, the red, white, and blue, we 
spit on you.'' Sadly, the radical extremists, most of whom have given 
nothing, suffered nothing, and who respect nothing, would rather burn 
and spit on the American flag than honor it.
  Contrast this image with the deeds of Roy Benavidez, an Army Sergeant 
from Texas, who led a helicopter extraction force to rescue a 
reconnaissance team in Vietnam. Despite being wounded in the leg, face, 
back, head, and abdomen by small arms fire, grenades, and hand-to-hand 
combat with vicious North Vietnamese soldiers, Benavidez held off the 
enemy and carried several wounded to the helicopters, until finally 
collapsing from a loss of blood. Benavidez earned the Medal of Honor. 
When Benavidez was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, the honor 
guard placed an American flag on his coffin and then folded it and gave 
it to his widow. The purpose of Roy Benavidez' heroic sacrifice--and 
the purpose of the American people's ratification of the First 
Amendment--was not to protect the right of radicals like Greg Johnson 
to burn and spit on the American flag.
  The American people have long distinguished between the First 
Amendment right to speak and write one's political opinions and the 
disrespectful, and often violent, physical destruction of the flag. For 
many years, the people's elected representatives in Congress and 49 
state legislatures passed statutes prohibiting the physical desecration 
of the flag. Our founding fathers, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and 
Justice Hugo Black believed these laws to be completely consistent with 
the First Amendment's protection of the spoken and written word and not 
disrespectful, extremist conduct.
  In 1989, however, the Supreme Court abandoned the history and intent 
of the First Amendment to embrace a philosophy that made no distinction 
between oral and written speech about the flag and extremist, 
disrespectful of the flag. In Texas v. Johnson, five members of the 
Court, for the first time ever, struck down a flag protection statute. 
The majority argued that the First Amendment had somehow changed and 
now prevented a state from protecting the American flag from radical, 
disrespectful, and violent actions. When Congress responded with a 
federal flag protection statute, the Supreme Court, in United States v. 
Eichman, used its new and changed interpretation of the First Amendment 
to strike it down by another five-to-four vote.

  Under this new interpretation of the First Amendment, it is assumed 
that the people, their elected legislators, and the courts can no 
longer distinguish between expressions concerning the flag that are 
more akin to spoken and written expression and expressions that 
constitute the disrespectful physical desecration of the flag. Because 
of this assumed inability to make such distinctions, it is argued that 
all of our freedoms to speak and write political ideas are wholly 
dependent on Greg Johnson's newly created ``right'' to burn and spit on 
the American flag.
  This ill-advised and radical philosophy fails because its basic 
premise--that laws and judges cannot distinguish between political 
expression and disrespectful physical desecration--is so obviously 
false. It is precisely this distinction that laws and judges did in 
fact make for over 200 years. Just as judges have distinguished which 
laws and actions comply with the constitutional command to provide 
``equal protection of the laws'' and ``due process of law,'' so to have 
judges been able to distinguish between free expression and 
disrespectful destruction.
  Certainly, extremist conduct such as smashing in the doors of the 
State Department may be a way of expressing one's dissatisfaction with 
the nation's foreign policy objectives. And one may even consider such 
behavior speech. Laws, however, can be enacted preventing such actions 
in large part because there are peaceful alternatives that can be 
equally powerful. After all, right here in the United States Senate, we 
prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even the silent 
display of signs or banners, in the public galleries.
  Moreover, it was not this radical philosophy of protecting 
disrespectful destruction that the people elevated to the status of 
constitutional law. Such an extremist philosophy was never ratified. 
Such a philosophy is not found in the original and historic intent of

[[Page S2230]]

the First Amendment. Thus, in this Senator's view, the Supreme Court 
erred in Texas v. Johnson and in United States v. Eichman.
  Since Johnson and Eichman, constitutional scholars have opined that 
an attempt by Congress to protect the flag with another statute would 
fail in light of the new interpretation currently embraced by the 
Supreme Court. Thus, an amendment is the only legal means to protect 
the flag.
  This amendment affects only the most radical forms of conduct and 
will leave untouched the current constitutional protections for 
Americans to speak their sentiments in a rally, to write their 
sentiments to their newspaper, and to vote their sentiments at the 
ballot box. The amendment simply restores the traditional and historic 
power of the people's elected representatives to prohibit the radical 
and extremist physical desecration of the flag.
  Nor would restoring legal protection to the American flag place us on 
a slippery slope to limit other freedoms. No other symbol of our bi-
partisan national ideals has flown over the battlefields, cemeteries, 
football fields, and school yards of America. No other symbol has 
lifted the hearts of ordinary men and women seeking liberty around the 
world. No other symbol has been paid for with so much blood of our 
countrymen. The American people have paid for their flag, and it is our 
duty to let them protect it.

  In recent weeks, my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle 
have called for a new bipartisan spirit in Congress. This amendment 
offers these senators the chance to honor their words.
  Restoring legal protection to the American flag is not, nor should it 
be, a partisan issue. Approximately sixty senators, both Republicans 
and Democrats, have joined with Senator Cleland and myself as original 
cosponsors of this amendment.
  Polls have shown that over 70 percent of the American people want the 
opportunity to vote to protect their flag. Numerous organizations from 
the American Legion to the Women's War Veterans to the African-American 
Women's clergy all support the flag protection amendment. Forty-nine 
state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for constitutional 
protection for the flag.
  I am therefore proud to rise today to introduce a constitutional 
amendment that would restore to the people's elected representatives 
the right to protect our unique national symbol, the American flag, 
from acts of physical desecration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the proposed 
amendment be included in the Record.
  Mr. President, I am very honored to be a cosponsor with my dear 
friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland. I appreciate the efforts he has 
put forth in this battle, and having served in the military as he has 
done with distinction, courage and heroism, he has a great deal of 
insight on this issue. I am proud and privileged to be able to work 
with him.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 7

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within 7 years after the date of its submission for 
     ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
     desecration of the flag of the United States.''.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I cosponsor this legislation, 
introduced by the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia, which would empower Congress to prohibit the 
burning or other desecration of the American Flag. I do so out of my 
conviction that the American Flag should be placed, preeminent and 
transcendent, as the inviolable representation of our great country, 
our greatest principles, and our highest ideals.
  Our democratically elected leaders and our representative government 
do not always live up to these principles and ideals. However, they 
have sustained and inspired our governance for over 200 years. They are 
the principles and ideals for which, throughout our history, so many 
brave men and women have given their lives. They are the principles and 
ideals, embodied in the American Flag, which have been consecrated with 
their blood.
  I came to this realization several years ago, when I visited the 
American Cemetery just off Normandy Beach in France. There stand almost 
10,000 simple, white crosses in long, silent rows. Each one marks the 
grave of an American soldier, who gave his or her life on behalf of our 
country, on behalf of our principles and ideals, and on behalf of their 
preservation throughout the world.
  These brave and mostly young soldiers did not necessarily agree with 
every decision made by their government and its leaders at the time. 
Nor did the brave men and women who gave their lives in wars before or 
afterward. Yet they made their supreme sacrifices on each of our, and 
all of our, behalfs. They gave up the rest of their lives, their 
families, their hopes, and their dreams, so that we might live under 
the American Flag and enjoy all of its freedoms, privileges, and 
opportunities.
  Surely, that supreme sacrifice should be sanctified, honored, 
respected and forever made inviolate.
  Many of my friends and trusted advisers have told me I am wrong to 
cosponsor this Constitutional Amendment. They say it violates the very 
first principle for which these courageous Americans gave their lives. 
They say that such an amendment will weaken our First Amendment rights 
for future protests, disagreements, and expressions of personal and 
political conscience.
  I fully agree with their goals; yet, in this single instance, I 
disagree with their conclusions. No one supporting this amendment wants 
to compromise the essential freedoms of our First Amendment. In fact, 
by our seeking a Constitutional Amendment to protect the American Flag, 
its sponsors and supporters are acknowledging the sanctity of the 
United States Supreme Court's decision, which includes the burning or 
desecration of the American Flag as a Constitutionally protected form 
of ``Free Speech.'' In other words, virtually all expressions of 
political protest, disagreement, disrespect, and discontent are 
permitted.
  They should be. And after this Amendment is adopted, they will be. 
That protection of our essential freedoms, first granted and forever 
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, 
remain inviolable. By this Amendment, we acknowledge them, respect 
them, and would place above them only the one ultimate symbol of our 
country, our freedoms, and our great democracy: the American Flag.
  Mr. President, I respect all of my colleagues and fellow citizens who 
disagree with our purpose through this legislation. However, I hope 
that they will not misunderstand our intent. Contrary to what some 
contend, this Constitutional amendment will not weaken either the First 
Amendment or the United States of America. In fact, it will strengthen 
both. It will remind all of us that there is something greater than 
ourselves, something greater than our individual opinions, something 
greater than our individual prerogatives. That something is greater 
than all of us, because it is all of us; it is the Flag of the United 
States of America.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of Senator Hatch's joint resolution which would amend the United States 
Constitution to prohibit the desecration of our flag. Opponents to this 
measure contend that the right to desecrate the flag is the ultimate 
expression of speech and freedom. I reject that proposition as I 
believe that the desecration of our flag is a reprehensible act which 
should be prohibited. It is an affront to the brave and terrible 
sacrifices made by millions of American men and women who willingly 
left their limbs, lives, and loved ones on battlefields around the 
world.
  It is an affront to these Americans who have given the greatest 
sacrifices because of what the flag symbolizes. To explain what our 
flag represents, former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice 
Charles Evans Hughes in his work, ``National Symbol,'' said:


[[Page S2231]]


       The flag is the symbol of our national unity, our national 
     endeavor, our national aspiration.
       The flag tells of the struggle for independence, of union 
     preserved, of liberty and union one and inseparable, of the 
     sacrifices of brave men and women to whom the ideals and 
     honor of this nation have been dearer than life.
       It means America first; it means an undivided allegiance.
       It means America united, strong and efficient, equal to her 
     tasks.
       It means that you cannot be saved by the valor and devotion 
     of your ancestors, that to each generation comes its 
     patriotic duty; and that upon your willingness to sacrifice 
     and endure as those before you have sacrificed and endured 
     rests the national hope.
       It speaks of equal rights, of the inspiration of free 
     institutions exemplified and vindicated, of liberty under law 
     intelligently conceived and impartially administered. There 
     is not a thread in it but scorns self-indulgence, weakness, 
     and rapacity.
       It is eloquent of our community interests, outweighing all 
     divergencies of opinion, and of our common destiny.

  Former President Calvin Coolidge, echoed Chief Justice Hughes in 
``Rights and Duties:''

       We do honor to the stars and stripes as the emblem of our 
     country and the symbol of all that our patriotism means.
       We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on 
     earth.
       It represents our peace and security, our civil and 
     political liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our 
     family, our friends, our home.
       We see it in the great multitude of blessings, of rights 
     and privileges that make up our country.
       But when we look at our flag and behold it emblazoned with 
     all our rights, we must remember that it is equally a symbol 
     of our duties.
       Every glory that we associate with it is the result of duty 
     done. A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and 
     purifies the national conscience.

  Given what our flag symbolizes, I find it incomprehensible that 
anyone would desecrate the flag and inexplicable that our Supreme Court 
would hold that burning a flag is protected speech rather than conduct 
which may be prohibited. I find it odd that one can be imprisoned for 
destroying a bald eagle's egg, but may freely burn our nation's 
greatest symbol. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this 
resolution so that our flag and all that it symbolizes may be forever 
protected.

                          ____________________